are you creationist or evolutionist?

[Skotadi Phobos]

I am talking about complexity. your answer in my opinion is completely irrelevant and I was just giving one of the main reasons why I believe in God.

Then your belief rests on a logical fallacy. What you can or cannot understand, due to complexity or any other reason, has nothing to do with the existence of God. It merely states a relationship between your mental capacity and the subject matter - that it is beyond you. That's OK. We all have our limits of understanding. But those limits have no bearing on God's existence.

shouldn't this be in the ways to call people stupid with out them knowing thread

[OldTrees]

I am talking about complexity. your answer in my opinion is completely irrelevant and I was just giving one of the main reasons why I believe in God.

Then your belief rests on a logical fallacy. What you can or cannot understand, due to complexity or any other reason, has nothing to do with the existence of God. It merely states a relationship between your mental capacity and the subject matter - that it is beyond you. That's OK. We all have our limits of understanding. But those limits have no bearing on God's existence.

shouldn't this be in the ways to call people stupid with out them knowing thread

He did not call you stupid. He said you were not omniscient and that your lack of knowledge merely states your lack of knowledge not a lack of knowledge.

[Skotadi Phobos]

I am talking about complexity. your answer in my opinion is completely irrelevant and I was just giving one of the main reasons why I believe in God.

Then your belief rests on a logical fallacy. What you can or cannot understand, due to complexity or any other reason, has nothing to do with the existence of God. It merely states a relationship between your mental capacity and the subject matter - that it is beyond you. That's OK. We all have our limits of understanding. But those limits have no bearing on God's existence.

shouldn't this be in the ways to call people stupid with out them knowing thread

He did not call you stupid. He said you were not omniscient and that your lack of knowledge merely states your lack of knowledge not a lack of knowledge.

oddly enough I understood what you said, (after reading you response several times)

[OldTrees]

I am talking about complexity. your answer in my opinion is completely irrelevant and I was just giving one of the main reasons why I believe in God.

Then your belief rests on a logical fallacy. What you can or cannot understand, due to complexity or any other reason, has nothing to do with the existence of God. It merely states a relationship between your mental capacity and the subject matter - that it is beyond you. That's OK. We all have our limits of understanding. But those limits have no bearing on God's existence.

shouldn't this be in the ways to call people stupid with out them knowing thread

He did not call you stupid. He said you were not omniscient and that your lack of knowledge merely states your lack of knowledge not a lack of knowledge.

oddly enough I understood what you said, (after reading you response several times)

Glad to be of service.

Perhaps I can explain the fallacy: "Argument from Ignorance" better by changing the subject of inquiry.

The general form of the fallacy is
1) I/You/We do not know X.
2) Therefore X is false.

X=God exists
1) I/You/We do not know God exists.
2) Therefore "God exists" is false.
This particular argument is evidently invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

[Skotadi Phobos]

I am talking about complexity. your answer in my opinion is completely irrelevant and I was just giving one of the main reasons why I believe in God.

Then your belief rests on a logical fallacy. What you can or cannot understand, due to complexity or any other reason, has nothing to do with the existence of God. It merely states a relationship between your mental capacity and the subject matter - that it is beyond you. That's OK. We all have our limits of understanding. But those limits have no bearing on God's existence.

shouldn't this be in the ways to call people stupid with out them knowing thread

He did not call you stupid. He said you were not omniscient and that your lack of knowledge merely states your lack of knowledge not a lack of knowledge.

oddly enough I understood what you said, (after reading you response several times)

Glad to be of service.

Perhaps I can explain the fallacy: "Argument from Ignorance" better by changing the subject of inquiry.

The general form of the fallacy is
1) I/You/We do not know X.
2) Therefore X is false.

X=God exists
1) I/You/We do not know God exists.
2) Therefore "God exists" is false.
This particular argument is evidently invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

humor me and replace x with god doesn't exist.

[Nepycros]

humor me and replace x with god doesn't exist.

Or that you're taking this seriously.

[OldTrees]

I am talking about complexity. your answer in my opinion is completely irrelevant and I was just giving one of the main reasons why I believe in God.

Then your belief rests on a logical fallacy. What you can or cannot understand, due to complexity or any other reason, has nothing to do with the existence of God. It merely states a relationship between your mental capacity and the subject matter - that it is beyond you. That's OK. We all have our limits of understanding. But those limits have no bearing on God's existence.

shouldn't this be in the ways to call people stupid with out them knowing thread

He did not call you stupid. He said you were not omniscient and that your lack of knowledge merely states your lack of knowledge not a lack of knowledge.

oddly enough I understood what you said, (after reading you response several times)

Glad to be of service.

Perhaps I can explain the fallacy: "Argument from Ignorance" better by changing the subject of inquiry.

The general form of the fallacy is
1) I/You/We do not know X.
2) Therefore X is false.

X=God exists
1) I/You/We do not know God exists.
2) Therefore "God exists" is false.
This particular argument is evidently invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

humor me and replace x with god doesn't exist.

X=God doesn't exist
1) I/You/We do not know God doesn't exists.
2) Therefore "God doesn't exists" is false.
This particular argument is evidently invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Notice the argument form (the argument from ignorance) is an invalid form because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Invalid form is a critique of the argument used not of the premises or conclusion.

[Belthus]

The particular form of argument from ignorance commonly used by Intelligent Design advocates is often called "God of the Gaps." They typically say that there is no natural explanation for X phenomenon, therefore we must accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., a Creator). For some phenomena cited, scientists counter that they indeed do have a natural explanation. For other phenomena, the gap in scientific knowledge does not mean that science will never have a natural explanation.

Religion used to be a source of understanding about the natural world. However, as science developed, it has become accepted as the best way we have of understanding the natural world. The work of science is not complete, and it never will be. Those who insist that religion provides superior understanding of the natural world have retreated from areas in which knowledge has been gained to areas in which a lot of research remains to be done. The picture these religious fundamentalists paint is not of a God who presents himself for all to see and astonishes beholders with feats of power, but instead of a God who hides in the shadows, a silent hermit, except for occasional appearances in a burrito or a grilled cheese sandwich (http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2010/02/Jesus-in-Food-and-Other-Objects.aspx).

[Skotadi Phobos]

The particular form of argument from ignorance commonly used by Intelligent Design advocates is often called "God of the Gaps." They typically say that there is no natural explanation for X phenomenon, therefore we must accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., a Creator). For some phenomena cited, scientists counter that they indeed do have a natural explanation. For other phenomena, the gap in scientific knowledge does not mean that science will never have a natural explanation.

Religion used to be a source of understanding about the natural world. However, as science developed, it has become accepted as the best way we have of understanding the natural world. The work of science is not complete, and it never will be. Those who insist that religion provides superior understanding of the natural world have retreated from areas in which knowledge has been gained to areas in which a lot of research remains to be done. The picture these religious fundamentalists paint is not of a God who presents himself for all to see and astonishes beholders with feats of [/u]power, but instead of a God who hides in the shadows, a silent hermit, except for occasional appearances in a burrito or a grilled cheese sandwich (http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2010/02/Jesus-in-Food-and-Other-Objects.aspx).

maybe he just said screw it I don't have to waist my power on these people. If you saw a burning pillar of fire in your front yard and nothing was on fire I have high doubts that you would run to the nearest church and become a christen. you would probably think is was an experiment and try and find an answer in science. if that didn't work you would wait until you found an answer that suited your beliefs. and please correct me if I am wrong. this is just my opinion.

[OldTrees]

The particular form of argument from ignorance commonly used by Intelligent Design advocates is often called "God of the Gaps." They typically say that there is no natural explanation for X phenomenon, therefore we must accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., a Creator). For some phenomena cited, scientists counter that they indeed do have a natural explanation. For other phenomena, the gap in scientific knowledge does not mean that science will never have a natural explanation.

Religion used to be a source of understanding about the natural world. However, as science developed, it has become accepted as the best way we have of understanding the natural world. The work of science is not complete, and it never will be. Those who insist that religion provides superior understanding of the natural world have retreated from areas in which knowledge has been gained to areas in which a lot of research remains to be done. The picture these religious fundamentalists paint is not of a God who presents himself for all to see and astonishes beholders with feats of [/u]power, but instead of a God who hides in the shadows, a silent hermit, except for occasional appearances in a burrito or a grilled cheese sandwich (http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2010/02/Jesus-in-Food-and-Other-Objects.aspx).

maybe he just said screw it I don't have to waist my power on these people. If you saw a burning pillar of fire in your front yard and nothing was on fire I have high doubts that you would run to the nearest church and become a christen. you would probably think is was an experiment and try and find an answer in via science. if that didn't work you would wait until you found an answer that suited your beliefs change your beliefs to better model reality.. and please correct me if I am wrong. this is just my opinion.

I corrected the above for what an intellectually honest scientist would do.
I would probably act similar but supplemented with philosophic inquiries.

[Skotadi Phobos]

The particular form of argument from ignorance commonly used by Intelligent Design advocates is often called "God of the Gaps." They typically say that there is no natural explanation for X phenomenon, therefore we must accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., a Creator). For some phenomena cited, scientists counter that they indeed do have a natural explanation. For other phenomena, the gap in scientific knowledge does not mean that science will never have a natural explanation.

Religion used to be a source of understanding about the natural world. However, as science developed, it has become accepted as the best way we have of understanding the natural world. The work of science is not complete, and it never will be. Those who insist that religion provides superior understanding of the natural world have retreated from areas in which knowledge has been gained to areas in which a lot of research remains to be done. The picture these religious fundamentalists paint is not of a God who presents himself for all to see and astonishes beholders with feats of [/u]power, but instead of a God who hides in the shadows, a silent hermit, except for occasional appearances in a burrito or a grilled cheese sandwich (http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2010/02/Jesus-in-Food-and-Other-Objects.aspx).

maybe he just said screw it I don't have to waist my power on these people. If you saw a burning pillar of fire in your front yard and nothing was on fire I have high doubts that you would run to the nearest church and become a christen. you would probably think is was an experiment and try and find an answer in via science. if that didn't work you would wait until you found an answer that suited your beliefs change your beliefs to better model reality.. and please correct me if I am wrong. this is just my opinion.

I corrected the above for what an intellectually honest scientist would do.
I would probably act similar but supplemented with philosophic inquiries.

Thanks for somewhat agreeing with me. it is just proving an other theory I have. we could debate until the end of time and still be at that same argument you say prove god exists and I say prove he doesn't.

[OldTrees]

The particular form of argument from ignorance commonly used by Intelligent Design advocates is often called "God of the Gaps." They typically say that there is no natural explanation for X phenomenon, therefore we must accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., a Creator). For some phenomena cited, scientists counter that they indeed do have a natural explanation. For other phenomena, the gap in scientific knowledge does not mean that science will never have a natural explanation.

Religion used to be a source of understanding about the natural world. However, as science developed, it has become accepted as the best way we have of understanding the natural world. The work of science is not complete, and it never will be. Those who insist that religion provides superior understanding of the natural world have retreated from areas in which knowledge has been gained to areas in which a lot of research remains to be done. The picture these religious fundamentalists paint is not of a God who presents himself for all to see and astonishes beholders with feats of [/u]power, but instead of a God who hides in the shadows, a silent hermit, except for occasional appearances in a burrito or a grilled cheese sandwich (http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2010/02/Jesus-in-Food-and-Other-Objects.aspx).

maybe he just said screw it I don't have to waist my power on these people. If you saw a burning pillar of fire in your front yard and nothing was on fire I have high doubts that you would run to the nearest church and become a christen. you would probably think is was an experiment and try and find an answer in via science. if that didn't work you would wait until you found an answer that suited your beliefs change your beliefs to better model reality.. and please correct me if I am wrong. this is just my opinion.

I corrected the above for what an intellectually honest scientist would do.
I would probably act similar but supplemented with philosophic inquiries.

Thanks for somewhat agreeing with me. it is just proving an other theory I have. we could debate until the end of time and still be at that same argument youBeltus says prove god exists, I say prove he doesn't

,and I say lets try to find out.
Discussion >> Debate